Women Underestimate Their Performance on the Job

By Sue Shellenbarger

What do your co-workers think of your performance on the job?

If you’re a woman, you’re three times more likely than a man to answer that question wrong.

Women handicap themselves on the job by chronically underrating their standing with bosses and co-workers, says a new study slated for presentation next month to the Academy of Management’s annual meeting. When asked to predict how they were rated by managers, direct reports and peers, women were significantly poorer at predicting others’ ratings than men, says the study of 251 managers by Scott Taylor of the University of New Mexico.

A lack of self-confidence isn’t the problem. The women surveyed thought highly of themselves compared with men in the study. But the females simply believed others regarded them as far less competent than they actually did, on a wide range of social and emotional skills related to leadership, according to the study. The ratings encompassed a wide range of attributes, from communication and conflict management to trustworthiness and teamwork.

Overall, averaging all the ratings, the gap between prediction and reality was three times greater for women than for men. “Women are so accustomed to decades of being ‘disappeared’” or ignored, “and to hearing histories of women whose contributions went unnoticed, that they assume these conditions exist to the same extent today,” Dr. Taylor says.

A few companies, of course, have fair, transparent, performance-based compensation systems that eliminate gender inequities.

But at most employers, expecting to be devalued can exact a big toll. A friend of mine says she underestimated her standing at work for years and paid a high price in her paycheck. She started at a low-paid entry-level job at her company and advanced quickly up the ladder. But she didn’t ask for a raise for several years, only to find out later that she was making 50% less than peers with similar or less experience.

“It came as a shock when I discovered how underpaid I was,” she says. “I really shot myself in the foot by not being a self-promoter.” The lesson: If your employer lacks a systematic comp policy, “you really have to self-promote and lobby for yourself if you care about your career or salary advancement,” my friend says.

My male peers have pointed out my own blind spots in this regard. Years ago, when I first learned how much a female executive at my company was paid, I marveled, “Wow, that’s a lot.” The male colleague who told me roared with laughter. “You think that’s a lot?” he asked me incredulously. “That’s half what men at her level make.”

Readers, do you have trouble promoting yourselves? Do you see women around you undervaluing their contributions? Does your workplace have transparent, performance-based advancement or compensation systems that help eliminate gender inequities? Or do workers of both genders have to do a lot of self-promotion to get ahead?

Comments (5 of 41)

IT IS PART OF OUR CULTURE TO EXPECT WOMEN TO DO MORE FOR LESS. SINCE BIRTH PAREENTS, RELATIVES, TEACHERS EXPECT MORE FROM GIRLS THAN BOYS. GIRLS ARE RAISED TO THINK MEN ARE GODS--SOMETIMES LITERALLY. BOYS RECEIVE HIGHER GRADES FOR POORER ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE. WOMEN ENTER THE WORK FORCE ERRONEOUSLY ASSUMING THAT MEN WORK HARDER AND SMARTER THAN THEM.
AT WORK WOMEN ARE EXPECTED TO BE MARRIED TO THE VERY SAME GROUP OF PEOPLE WE ARE COMPETING AGAINST. MANY WOMEN OWE THEIR JOBS TO THEIR HUSBAND. I HAD NEITHER PROBLEM AND WHEN I PROMOTED MY SUCCESS I WAS FIRED. SEEMED THAT THE MEN SENIOR TO ME HAD THE SAME JOB I HAD BUT WITH A NEGATIVE JOB PERFORMANCE. FUTHERMORE UNMARRIED WOMEN ARE EITHER TREATED LIKE BIMBOS OR IF THEY DON'T ACT OUT THOSE EXPECTATONS, ARE DYKES.
MEN BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT VERY SMART AND HAVE A HIGH PLAY INCENTIVE HAVE LEARNED TO WORK AS A TEAM..WOMEN WHO ARE SELF SUFFICIENT THINK WE CAN DO IT ALL. THIS MAKES IT FAR EASIER FOR MEN TO ORGANIZE AND COMPETE AGAINST US. BECAUSE WOMEN DON'T THINK AS A TEAM PLAYER WE ARE UNAWARE OF WHAT THE COMPETITION DOESN'T HAVE. WE ALSO RELY ON MEN'S BOASTING AS AN ACCURATE APPRAISAL OF THEIR PERFORMANCE.
WOMEN NEED TO LEARN TO WORK FOR EACH OTHER'S BENEFIT AND TO STOP WORRYING ABOUT HOW MEN FEEL!

5:34 pm August 5, 2009

NEGirl to Favors Balance wrote :

I think you've kind of answered your own question. Bottom line: it depends. Depends on the size of the non-profit, the financial condition, etc., the location (this is a huge factor). From what I've seen, the pay can vary widely even from one non-profit to another. I had a friend that ran a small local chapter of a national organization, and she ended up doing about what I felt should have been three different jobs, and was compensated okay, not great. I've seen others transition to and from larger non-profits with almost no discernible difference in salary.

5:15 pm August 5, 2009

FB wrote :

Thanks for the input folks. My current position directly interfaces with the needy, so my assistance is very direct. It's good to have some reference about the trade-off though. I'm thinking that the non-profit world is a great fit for me right now, but who knows about the future. Perhaps it will be a good place for me early in my career and I'll change my mind later in order to earn more. Or maybe it will be a good fit period.

5:15 pm August 5, 2009

Upstate NY Dad wrote :

The president of the university where I work makes mid-6 figures; his direct reports make about 2/3 of that. The next level has much more variation; they are at 20-40% of the president. I'm in this band and I make ~70% of what I would be making in corporate america. (I had offers in other locations at the higher $$, but I did not want to move away from here for those jobs; we are doing just fine.) These are all professional, non-academic jobs; everyone gets at least 5 weeks vacation and a ~10% employer contribution to 403b plan. Flexibility varies with the department/manager. It feels like a corporate environment.
FB - I'd say a non-profit of 100 people would have significantly less pay (30-50% less) than corporate positions, but I view corporate positions as orgs that are significantly bigger than that.

5:05 pm August 5, 2009

tsp2007 wrote :

FB - I also have a friend who works at a lab at Harvard and does fine; but I left NFPs to work in corporate and for a job at an NFP similiar to what I do, I would guess I'd get paid about half of what I get paid now. That being said, at my old job I never worked past 5, not once, and would have had oceans of flexibility when it came to a family, whereas now my options are much more limited. I'm not sure that's worth the 50% pay cut to me, though. I wish I could say I felt like what I was doing at my old NFP made me feel like I'd made someone's life better but in the admin position I had then I was too far removed from the actual social work that was going on to feel that way, so I just felt underpaid and grumpy. In corporate I just feel grumpy :)

About The Juggle

The Juggle examines the choices and tradeoffs people make as they juggle work and family. The site provides readers with news, insight and tips on parenting, workplace issues, commuting, caregiving and other issues busy readers with families face. It is also a place for readers to share and compare their own work-and-family experiences and to seek advice and recommendations. The Juggle is includes regular contributions from other staffers at the Journal. Contact the Juggle with ideas or suggestions at thejuggle@wsj.com